Observation: Republican party intimidated by the worst President in U.S. history

[mcsluggo]

Completely mis quote me there bang.......I never had such a post......surprised they allow that here........

It does not make you look very smart yourself......

would somebody please take this guy's shovel out of his hands before he hurts himself....

[Jumbo]

:doh:

Well, there's always one in the crowd.

What do you mean "one", Tonto?

[Rudechain]

What do you mean "one", Tonto?

Doh, your right. We have our fair share of "challenged" here on ES. ( actually I think we all take turns)

But I seriously doubt the GOP are scared to disagree with Obama out of fear of the "racist" label.

I mean we had the Birth certificate, college records, Michelle dictating our kids diets, mysterious travel to Pakistan and coming soon....

Obama is actually the anti-christ. :evilg:

[Burgold]

Nixon was definitely in line in 1960 when he won the nomination and lost to Kennedy in the Primary. but then he went home to california and lost the governors race. He wasn't a political insider in 1968 when he came back from an absense on the national stage and took the nomination for a second time and the general election.

It's true that Ronald Reagan did run again and again and again and lost multiple times before securing the nomination. but I disagree he was ever a party insider. Reagan was your crazy uncle you keep locked in the shed to republican party leaders prior to 1980. He was considered to extreme for national office. He was a younger Barry Goldwater. Ronald Reagan did take the party by storm and did dominate like no republican before him or after him... Only Reagan was never a party insider.

He came from nowhere and was elected by exploiting an amaizing wedge in US politics... Joining fiscal, social and libertarians into a power block. A formula that all other Republicans have tried to copy.....

But look at where the party has gone since Reagan. No Reagan follower again has risen to the heights of the party. George bush was out of the Nixon school of the GOP.. A social liberal. George W. Bush surrounded himself with Nixon cronies,( Rummy, Cheney) not guys who Reagan brought to town.

Reagan really only had legs in the GOP with voters, not the leadership.

I also disagree McCain was inline. McCain was definately an outlier too. He was a reagan / goldwater republican. He had to basically sell his soul to win the nomination. Which of coarse cost him the general.

That's a tough sell to say that Bush wasn't in line of succession after Reagan. He was his VP! They were ideologically different. It's even possible using that line of thinking that GW Bush wasn't an outilier but a favorite son from the Reagan dynasty. As for Nixon, I've read quite a few people say that the reason Nixon got it was because the Republicans thought he got rooked in the Kennedy-Nixon debates and Nixon needed to get his fair shot.

I'm sure you have to be an 'insider' to be in the line for succession. McCain was never totally an "insider," but he most assuredly was next in line for the succession because he was second to Bush and this was his last chance.

[Bang]

Completely mis quote me there bang.......I never had such a post......surprised they allow that here........

It does not make you look very smart yourself......

Hey, I'm agreein' with ya, bruther!

It's high time people quit hidin' behin' the dang race card!

Be it to wield it, or wield it's supposed wielding against they's enemies in which to try an' focus them away from the real issues like homos gittin' married and them damn liberals comin' to git my dang guns!

~Bang

[Jumbo]

I just don't get how intellectual dishonest you are.....

Yet I am not surprised at how you conduct yourself here...

......surprised they allow that here........

It does not make you look very smart yourself......

You seem to spend a lot of time "surprised." So you may be surprised that we no longer allow you here, once you realize you have been permanently banned. I know I have been lax in culling for many months, but I'm not fully retired.

Here is a reminder of our last encounter as written in your user notes:

http://www.extremeskins.com/showpost.php?p=7367795&postcount=190

see previous posts in thread too

posted this myself than edited it out to avoid peanut gallery comments

In post 166 you said -

-Who says it is “normal or natural” for women to vote? We just finally decided it was “fair” after they forced us.

Talk about one being full of themselves.Guess your a mod and handing down threats like a true communist.

The red would be one of the examples of your inability to comprehend what I was saying and then mis-stating it as evidence of my proposed "pathetic"-ness.

The green, while getting the mod part right, would be more mis-statement and your third strike (having nothing to do with modhood or communism).

actually, going back and looking at things, i upped it to a year. we don't need another trolling bigot, we have our quota.

(there's some fun reading in that thread for any who missed it)

[bird_1972]

That might be true, but for Romney to lose the nomination there has to be another candidate who wins.

Money talks, and unless some insurgent candidate comes up with a new way to raise money (like the way Obama did with his social network stuff), it's going to be really hard to overcome Romney's enormous money advantage if he successfully sets himself up as the establishment/business candidate the way Bush did.

Two thoughts on this:

1) I thought Romney was in a similar position 4 years ago and lost the nomination to McCain later in the primaries - I believe he had an initial advantage in terms of funds in 2008 as well

2) Romney has the best chance to win a general election vs.Obama - just my opinion

[Duckus]

Rick Perry.

He will announce soon. I would not be surprised if he won the nomination. Tea Party and social conservatives love him.

[88Comrade2000]

That might be true, but for Romney to lose the nomination there has to be another candidate who wins.

Money talks, and unless some insurgent candidate comes up with a new way to raise money (like the way Obama did with his social network stuff), it's going to be really hard to overcome Romney's enormous money advantage if he successfully sets himself up as the establishment/business candidate the way Bush did.

The establishment candidate will have to really appeal to the tea parties who will be a force in the 2012 primaries. The tea partiers will be seeking purity as they to win congressional and senatorial primaries. That will impact the presidential race. The tea party candidate might be the nominee or veep.

[bird_1972]

Rick Perry.

He will announce soon. I would not be surprised if he won the nomination. Tea Party and social conservatives love him.

I know very little about him. Does he stand a chance of winning a national race?

[Wrong Direction]

I know very little about him. Does he stand a chance of winning a national race?

I forgot the exact TP, but Texas has gained as much jobs as something like all other states combined over the last 2(ish) years. Again, I forget the particulars, but he has a story along those lines to tout. That could be formidable if the economy is what we all think it'll be next year.

[bird_1972]

I forgot the exact TP, but Texas has gained as much jobs as something like all other states combined over the last 2(ish) years. Again, I forget the particulars, but he has a story along those lines to tout. That could be formidable if the economy is what we all think it'll be next year.

Agreed but only if he isn't too much of a Texas-regional brand of politician. I think that Bush has sullied the market for that on a national stage for the next few election cycles.

[Duckus]

I forgot the exact TP, but Texas has gained as much jobs as something like all other states combined over the last 2(ish) years. Again, I forget the particulars, but he has a story along those lines to tout. That could be formidable if the economy is what we all think it'll be next year.

Job creation has been good. A big hurdle for him will be the fact that we have a 27 BILLION dollar defect that he denied completely during his reelection campaign. We are about to make unprecedented cuts in education and social services.

But if you are a social conservative, you will love him I guess.

In the past few months he has been able to pass -

Bill allowing student to carry guns on college campuses

Bill allowing all elected officials to be able to carry weapons anywhere they want

The strictest voter ID laws in the country

Women have to get a sonogram and listen to the heart beat before have an abortion

Sanctuary city legislation

Tort reform and loser pays (if you bring up a lawsuit and lose, you pay)

He has skeletons in his closet though . . . . .

[bird_1972]

He has skeletons in his closet though . . . . .

He sounds awful.

What are the skeletons?

[Riggo-toni]

The GOP is making the same mistakes the Dems did in the 80s - litmus testing their candidates on social issues to make it through the primary to such an extent that their views are an anathema to the general public. Pat Buchanon and the Bush family have done to the GOP what Jesse Jackson did to the Dems. Look how gawdawfull the GOP candidates are!!! Absolutely lamentable! Gingrich is the only one whose accomplishments and intelligence I have any respect for, but he is clearly unelectable.

While Obama is no Clinton, he is clearly a better Prez than Carter, and there is no Reagan in the wings; and even if there were, the NeoCon/SoCon nitwits would never allow another libertarian Republican to make it past Super Tuesday.

[zoony]

The GOP is making the same mistakes the Dems did in the 80s - litmus testing their candidates on social issues to make it through the primary to such an extent that their views are an anathema to the general public. Pat Buchanon and the Bush family have done to the GOP what Jesse Jackson did to the Dems. Look how gawdawfull the GOP candidates are!!! Absolutely lamentable! Gingrich is the only one whose accomplishments and intelligence I have any respect for, but he is clearly unelectable.

While Obama is no Clinton, he is clearly a better Prez than Carter, and there is no Reagan in the wings; and even if there were, the NeoCon/SoCon nitwits would never allow another libertarian Republican to make it past Super Tuesday.

very good analogy. And I think it is why so many children of the 1980s are reluctant to vote Democrat. They were the party of clueless loony bins all throughout the 1980s and early 90s. Very similar to the GOP today.

..

[88Comrade2000]

very good analogy. And I think it is why so many children of the 1980s are reluctant to vote Democrat. They were the party of clueless loony bins all throughout the 1980s and early 90s. Very similar to the GOP today.

..

So there should be an extended democrat era coming soon. Maybe it's already started. Dems keep WH,Senate and regain the House and dominate the rest of the Teens and early 20's.

[aREDSKIN]

So there should be an extended democrat era coming soon. Maybe it's already started. Dems keep WH,Senate and regain the House and dominate the rest of the Teens and early 20's.

We just had that and look what happened. Dream on.

[Teller]

For three years, including several months before he took office we have heard non-stop how Barack Obama was the worst President in U.S. history.

Mostly from sarcastic liberals, as is the case, yet again, here.

Yet here we are in the election cycle looking at the candidates who are rising to oppose him and save us from Obama's monstrous incompetency... and I am more struck by who's not running than who is? If Obama is as bad as the Republicans, the Conservatives, the Libertarians, and Talk Radio says... why are so many afraid to face him?

I think those of us who are (or have become) Obama political opponents fall into one of two camps. Those who see him as incompetent -- whom I happen to believe have been proven wrong, and those who see him as competent, but misguided -- the category I fall into. You're absolutely right to mock the "incompetent" crowd. I do too. But the second group is more than able to support our position. (Though I'll grant that calling someone "misguided" is a personal opinion, more than something that's absolutely provable.

Why do many think he'll be difficult to unseat. Okay sure, he stabilized the banking industry, saved the U.S. automotive industry, and got Bin Laden, but unemployment still sucks, gas prices are high, and we are beginning to feel inflation.

He'll be difficult to unseat for a whole host of reasons, but first, let me offer a correction. WE saved two manufacturers, by propping them up with tax dollars. It was Obama's decision to use our money to support businesses with bad models (business and vehicle.) Ford took no bailout money, and Bill Ford went years without taking a salary. And while we ***** about CEO's taking heaping handfuls of dollars while their companies tank, we "reward" those who do it right, by taking away from them what should have been an increased market share. Hooray capitalism!!!

He got bin Laden. No one can argue that; nor do I know of a reasonable argument that can be made against it. Unfortunately, too many will be willing to fall for the coming campaign rallying cry, and ignore what they voted for (or against) in 2008. It's a sad fact of life that the overwhelming majority of the electorate isn't as politically literate as we are here (on both sides.) I mean hell, we had people who voted for (or against) a skin color the last time around. I don't know of a single person on this board who would raise to that level of idiocy. Sadly, many outside of our friendly confines do, and will.

We're talking about the worst leader in the history of humanity people! Why are the big time Republicans cowering in a corner and refusing to run? Could it be that Obama's been pretty good?

In some areas, he's been stellar. And I give him credit for those things, absolutely.

But in others, he's either bald-faced lied, or dropped the ball. And I'll continue to hound him for those. Unfortunately, most of the issues that directly affect me fall into this category.

I don't see anyone on the right that inspires me right now either though. I could definitely see myself voting third-party this time, and potentially switching my affiliation to "independent." Neither side has kept its word in decades on the things that actually affect me. Why give them the satisfaction of counting me among their numbers? Besides, the only reason I didn't register indy from the start was that I wanted to vote in primaries. At this point, I'm probably willing to let you guys select the idiots I have to chose from.

[mistertim]

Agreed but only if he isn't too much of a Texas-regional brand of politician. I think that Bush has sullied the market for that on a national stage for the next few election cycles.

I think that is mostly true as far as the general electorate but not necessarily true for the Republican base. If Perry runs and is able to raise enough money he could be a force with the SoCons and Tea Partiers. He is very pro-life, against gay marriage, supports teaching intelligent design in public schools, doesn't believe in the science behind man made climate change (though he does, apparently, think praying helps with droughts: http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/04/faced-drought-and-wildfires-texas-governor-rick-perry-proclaims-p ), he endorsed a resolution supporting Texas state sovereignty but backed off a bit/talked around the subject when straight up asked if he supported secession. The problem for him is that, if he were able to win the nomination, his very right wing views on many issues would turn off a lot of moderate or independent voters, especially when going up against someone who is more of a pragmatist in Obama.

[Burgold]

I don't mind that assessment in the least, HH and I pretty much agree with it. I find myself in the usual Oliver Twist mode and looking at our President saying,

"Please sir, can I have some more."

More leadership.

More willingness to stare down his own side.

More willingness to take on the hard stuff in a way that will lessen his popularity (he does this some... although, he's been hit and miss on this in my view because he hasn't stepped on enough Congressional toes. Pelosi and Reid needed to be taken to the woodshed. The Dems were far too greedy and incompetent when they had full control. I blame Obama somewhat for his inability to put a leash on that.)

On the other hand, he's done a buncha good things some of which have born fruit already. Still, we dug such a deep hole that a pretty good job makes you feel like an urchin begging for more gruel.

[Teller]

We need a facebook-style "like" button. Burg, I really appreciate that post, and feel like there's nothing I need to add.

[JMS]

That's a tough sell to say that Bush wasn't in line of succession after Reagan.

Yes it would be but when has hard sells ever stoped me? No sereously that wasn't my point. I segwayed from the previous post to that post you quoted. I wasn't trying to make the case that Bush Sr. wasn't a party insider. Bush Sr was the ultimate party insider... son of a senator, congresman, UN ambasidor, Ambasidor China, and head of the CIA.. then VP and President.

No my point was that Ronald Reagan was a party outsider and really didn't affect the GOP very much. He's the flag they fawn at.. But my point was Bush Sr who came after him was not of the Ronald Reagan school of governemnt. He was really more influenced by Richard Nixon even Ford.. so was his son.

Reagan is actually thus the ultimate republican outsider. He came from nowhere... refused vp nominations when offered him over the outrages shouts of other GOP officials. He finally won the nomination only after the water gate boys got one more shot at trying to float a winner by the country in a Ford re-election campaign... Then when Reagan won the nomination he only won the election because he was up against a hugely flawed incumbant... Reagan was a fluke from top to bottom. Who knew he would turn out to be the greatest President of my lifetime.

He was his VP! They were ideologically different. It's even possible using that line of thinking that GW Bush wasn't an outilier but a favorite son from the Reagan dynasty. As for Nixon, I've read quite a few people say that the reason Nixon got it was because the Republicans thought he got rooked in the Kennedy-Nixon debates and Nixon needed to get his fair shot.

Nixon was out in the wilderness after his loss in 1960. He sucessfully lined up Howard Hughes to fund his re-invention of himself. Some say Howard came to him. That paired with an incredible unpopular war and maybe one of the least popular presidents excluding GW ever delivered Nixon a land slide victory.

Ronald Reagan didn't care for Nixon or Fords people much. He really brought in his own guys many of whom were new to government. Most of nixon's policy people did not find homes in his whitehouse. There are exceptions.. General Hage for example.... But Bush brought back Cheney who came of age under Rummy and Nixon... and was also Ford's chief of staff.

I'm sure you have to be an 'insider' to be in the line for succession. McCain was never totally an "insider," but he most assuredly was next in line for the succession because he was second to Bush and this was his last chance.

I think McCain was the most popular politician in America in 2004. He had to reverse himself on most of his public common sense stances in order to secure the nomination and even then the religous right only gave him tepid support. 2008 it wouldn't distress me much if you wanted to call him an insider.

[twa]

He sounds awful.

What are the skeletons?

The political corpses of his opponents ....like Bill White and KBH,eh Duckus?? :evilg:

Don't think he is running,but he could certainly find a receptive audience in many places

I'm not a fan,but he can play the game

[Guest Spearfeather]

I got a better question. Why is the first statement in the OP, not only illogical, but a total exaggeration?